Standing Committee E

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
That in the Order of the Committee of 30th April 2002 relating to programming, the following shall be substituted for the entries in the Table for the 2nd to 8th sittings— 
  ''2nd, 3rd and 4th  Clauses 14 to 33  7pm at 4th sitting  5th and 6th  Clauses 34 to 58  9.55 pm at 6th sitting  7th and 8th  Clauses 94 to 126, Schedule 7, Clauses 127 to 129  7 pm at 8th sitting   9th and 10th  Clause 59, Schedule 3, Clauses 60 to 78, Schedule 4, Clauses 79 to 90, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 91 to 93, New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill.  9.55 pm at 10th sitting''.
 I shall spend a couple of minutes explaining why we reconvened the Programming Sub-Committee this morning. We want to create the potential for another sitting on 21 May, if it is needed. That may be useful, because we expect to table new appeal proposals on Tuesday, and the change will give hon. Members an extra seven days to seek advice and form opinions on the new procedures. I hope that that is convenient.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and for the generous time available to scrutinise the Bill. The official Opposition have no objection and concur with the Government's proposal.

Simon Hughes: As the Minister knows, we anticipated that we would need extra time, and if there are to be significant new clauses, it is logical to have time to examine and debate them properly. My only question concerns the final two sittings. Is it not more logical to deal with the provisions on initial decisions before appeals? She may not be able to give an immediate response, but will that point be considered?

Angela Eagle: We had a quick look at it in the Programming Sub-Committee and did not see much difference, but I shall keep the hon. Gentleman's request in mind.
 Question put and agreed to.

Eric Illsley: Before we resume the debate, I should make it clear that that change means that the proceedings that were to be completed by 11.25 am, as detailed on the selection list, must now be completed by 7 pm. I hope that all hon. Members are clear about that.

Clause 15 - Support for destitute asylum-seeker

Amendment proposed [7 May]: No. 129, in page 9, 
 line 12, after 'centre', insert 
'for a maximum period of three months'.—[Mr. Malins.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Eric Illsley: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 171, in page 9, line 16, at end insert
'and 
 (c) neither the person nor his dependants has previously been accommodated in an accommodation centre for a period of six months in total.'.
 No. 138, in clause 20, page 11, line 26, at end add 
'for a period of no longer than three months'.
 No. 177, in page 11, line 26, at end add 
'for a period of no longer than six months in total.'.
 No. 140, in clause 21, page 11, line 31, after 'centre', insert 
'for a period of no longer than three months'.
 No. 179, in page 11, line 31, at end insert 
'for a period of no longer than 6 months in total.'.

Simon Hughes: This debate raises the second set of important issues concerning accommodation centres and, specifically, how long people should be kept there. As the Committee will see and as a marker for the debate, the Conservative amendments would introduce a three-month maximum, while my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and I propose a six-month maximum. The two work both as a proposition for the maximum stay and as a trigger for a debate, which we shall have partly now and partly later, on how long the payments system, which is altered by the Bill, should cover people when they are in accommodation centres. We had much of that debate in our previous sitting and I do not want to repeat it, but I will make some short points.
 On 7 February, the Home Secretary said on the Floor of the House: 
''God forbid that anyone should be in an accommodation centre for six months.''—[Official Report, 7 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 1037.]
 If that is his view, it is reasonable for Opposition colleagues to say that that should not happen and to suggest an end date. The Minister said that most people in accommodation centres are, inevitably, young adult men, as most asylum seekers are young adult men. The dangers of keeping people for a long time are boredom and stress, and a situation that is more difficult to manage. It is in everyone's interests that the period is kept to a minimum. 
 The difference between the propositions made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is that we believe, and have believed for some time, that wider latitude is better and more realistic. Although a three-month period may be desirable, a six-month period is sufficiently wide. We also hope that all the processing and assessment of need could be achieved in that period. Our proposition is therefore not ungenerous, 
 but realistic. We would all be troubled if we subscribed to the idea that accommodation centres could keep people for more than six months. If the Home Secretary agrees, it is better to refine the period to six months. 
 Colleagues outside the Committee have inquired about the proceedings and progress. They realise that this is an important debate, and they want us to tie the Government down to a maximum. If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, will she at least consider an upper limit? Six months is a reasonable alternative to three. I hope she accepts that.

Angela Eagle: The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) would limit the period to three months, and that tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) would limit it to six. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly quoted the remarks made by the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. I confirm that we do not want people to stay in accommodation centres indefinitely, and that six months is an appropriate time. After six months, we would seek to make other arrangements. However, it is not sensible for the Bill to include such a statutory limit, which would give us no flexibility in dealing with individual cases.
 On an exact day and regardless of individual circumstances, we might have to move individuals or families out of an accommodation centre where they are settled, close to the end of the determination process, and about to be accepted as refugees, integrated and moved out. Alternatively, arrangements may be under way to return a failed asylum seeker who is still living in the accommodation centre, but we may have to wait a few days over the six-month limit to obtain tickets and the appropriate Government say-so to return that national to their country of origin. That often happens, and the practicalities of getting papers, tickets and flights to return people are also involved. 
 If the amendments were accepted, we would have to uproot someone and move them somewhere else for only a few days, which is absurd. We need that flexibility around the edges, but that does not mean that we intend to keep people in accommodation centres month after month while making no attempt to move them on or move them out if there are issues with their cases.

Simon Hughes: I accept the Government's good faith. If we need flexibility around the edges, will the Minister accept on Report an amendment specifying seven or eight months?

Angela Eagle: We should not have statutory limits in the Bill, for the reasons that I have set out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman equally accepts the good faith of what I said about the time that we intend and expect people to be in accommodation centres.
 We must consider how fast and how effectively we can complete the asylum process, which we all want to be carried out quickly and efficiently. It has been 
 suggested several times in Committee, as it was on Second Reading, that it could be completed much faster—that is our aspiration for all cases—but three months is pretty rapid, according to our experience. Five weeks, which has been suggested by the official Opposition, is so rapid that it is difficult to see how, given the current structure of the appeals process, it could be achieved except in very straightforward cases. 
 I hope that we shall be able to reduce the six months through the changes and appeals streamlining under the Bill and some administrative changes that we are making on the personal serving of decisions, reporting requirements and much closer contact with asylum seekers, whether in accommodation centres or dispersed in the other systems. Hon. Members have rightly said that 48 per cent. of applications have initial decisions served within two months and that 45 per cent. of appeals go through both tiers of the Immigration Appellate Authority in four months. That is the ''two plus four'' six-month period that we are talking about. 
 We have managed to get first-tier decisions and appeals heard faster at Oakington, but cases go there because they are straightforward. Other cases are not as straightforward. The hon. Member for Woking knows from his previous experience that the caseworker may have to seek other documents if an asylum seeker presents with a particularly complex history. If the individual has been tortured, an extra report is needed from the Medical Foundation on what may have happened. Individual doctors will consider what happened and examine the individual. Then we must wait for the report before we can progress the case. 
 There are all kinds of scenario in which thinking that we might achieve five weeks is fantastical. There would have to be an initial decision in all cases in one week, which is what we achieve at Oakington with straightforward cases, but that is not achievable in all, due to their complexity and the difficulty of establishing what has happened. We would then have to hold an appeal within a month. Again, we can do that in some cases, but not if there are complications.

Karen Buck: I support my hon. Friend's point. Does she accept that, in addition to making decisions swiftly, it is equally important to make those decisions accurately and thereby reduce the excessive number of cases that go to appeal as a result of basic non-compliance? There is an argument for saying that we want to proceed quickly, but let us not tie ourselves down, as we must ensure that decisions are right first time.

Angela Eagle: Yes, we must act as quickly as possible in each case, and we must do so efficiently. By that I mean that we must make good first-tier decisions that are upheld on appeal in a way that does not compromise the fairness of the hearing for the individual.
 My hon. Friend is right about the technical issues relating to the statement of evidence form in 2000, in that many people were technically failed on their first-tier hearing because they did not return the form in 
 time. However, she will be glad to know that an administrative change in the casework directorate, which was as simple as establishing a PO box, massively reduced the number of technical failures. It ensured that, when returned, statement of evidence forms were properly attached to files. 
 We are therefore considering the merits of cases, rather than striking them out and sending them to appeal simply because the forms seem not to be there, but are in fact in a pile of post. Those matters involve administrative coherence, and I assure the Committee that we are doing our best to make a great deal of progress in that regard.

Cheryl Gillan: What the Minister says seems eminently reasonable in one way. However, as we seek to limit the legislation to protect the position of asylum seekers, did she consider during drafting the inclusion of a limit and the use of secondary legislation or another mechanism to set out the circumstances in which the flexibility that she seeks may be encompassed? We would thereby have the safeguard that we seek and she would have the flexibility that she quite reasonably wants for exceptional circumstances.

Angela Eagle: I am not sure that the two go together, simply because the Conservative amendment would set the limit at three months and our experience of complex cases shows that that is far too short. We all want to be able to do everything that quickly, but some cases are very complicated.
 Let us suppose that the Bill included such a provision. For many people in accommodation centres, the three-month limit would pass and they would have to be removed from the centres wholesale and placed elsewhere. That would require a lot of administrative concentration and funding, and the organisation that was supposed to be running the system would be moving people around it rather than dealing with appeals and the rest of the process. Purely for the sake of administrative coherence, I am reluctant to have such a limit in the Bill. However, we do not want accommodation centres indefinitely to house people waiting for asylum decisions. We would regard six months or so as long enough.

Cheryl Gillan: I understand what the Minister says, but the Immigration Advisory Service recommended six months. In a way, the more she deploys the argument about needing to put more time into the slot, the less her argument about the need to resist a time limit in the Bill holds water. I therefore ask her again to examine the possibility, before consideration on Report and Third Reading, of including some safeguard while allowing for flexibility through another mechanism. We would take some comfort if we felt that the Government had examined that possibility. It may be rejected, but it would be reassuring to know that it had been considered once more.

Angela Eagle: I reassure the hon. Lady that we have considered that possibility. However, we are reluctant to have a limit in the Bill, for the reasons that I gave. There are often circumstances that we cannot anticipate in which a limit would unintentionally
 create administrative chaos in a system that is already under stress and strain.
 It is an odd example, but the Child Support Agency springs to mind, because of the requirement in the original legislation that every assessment had to be revisited every two years. That created a huge administrative blockage that detracted from the organisation's ability to do its day-to-day work. That is the sort of nightmare scenario I want to avoid, but I openly tell the Committee that, give or take the odd day or week or two, we do not intend to keep individuals in accommodation centres longer than six months. If it looks like a case is nowhere near solved, we shall attempt to establish case by case whether a more appropriate place can be found.

Simon Hughes: No one doubts the intentions of the Home Secretary or the Minister. In this policy area, however, the Government have failed to deliver again and again. What defence does the Committee have when confronted by failure after failure? People might say that an opportunity to prescribe a limit was missed by Parliament, so there is no protection against someone being left in an accommodation centre for seven to 10 or 11 months. How can we ensure that the Government's intention will be delivered if six months passes and individuals are still based in accommodation centres? What can we do then?

Angela Eagle: I hope that individual cases and times will be examined administratively and, as the six-month period approaches, that a decision will be taken on whether it is more appropriate for individuals to remain in current accommodation or to be moved elsewhere through dispersal and putting them in a cluster area.
 We should also remember that accommodation centres are designed to be supportive environments, not horrible places, and some people might be quite happy to remain beyond the limit. We do not intend people to stay in such centres for years and years. If a case drags on or an appeal clogs up, people should have the prospect of moving elsewhere if that is deemed appropriate and it is what they want. 
 I hope that accommodation centres prove to be supportive environments and that services are developed on site to facilitate asylum claims, making it easier to deal with them faster. That should result in a lower percentage of people with clogged up claims, even if they are difficult ones. As a Minister, I shall not talk of legislation that will fail and be hopeless. The Committee wants it to be effective and we must plan for that. I understand the scepticism of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. These issues are never easy to solve administratively. In fact, no other country has solved them any more effectively than we have. 
 I hope that I have clarified the Government's intentions, without the need for an amendment. We intend to deliver on our intentions.

Parmjit Dhanda: The Minister will recall that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke about constituency MPs' frustration over the lack of adequate and quick responses to claims. If the
 provisions cannot be amended, will the Department consider producing a specific guideline to help us to advise constituents and their families on how long individuals are likely to be kept in accommodation centres?

Angela Eagle: The Home Secretary could not have made that much clearer on the Floor of the House and I could not make it much clearer in Committee, short of accepting amendments that would create inflexibilities and lead to absurdity or administrative difficulty. We do not intend to leave people in accommodation centres for years and years. We are trialling them to see whether we can speed the process up. I hope that the trial proves successful and that we speed up the process. Building statutory limits into the Bill, however, is not an effective way to ensure that what a Minister says in Committee actually happens.

Parmjit Dhanda: I am not talking about amending the Bill, but could we not have some guideline from the Department, outside legislation, closer to when the Bill comes into force? I do not expect any detail now, but is the Department willing to consider issuing guidelines, which would be particularly supportive and helpful to constituency MPs?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend knows that procedural statutory instruments often accompany a Bill. It may be possible to use such instruments to establish procedures, but here there will be no statutory limits in either primary or secondary legislation. Policy guidelines for those running the system will be published and made available. They will replicate the assumption that I have laid before the Committee today—on the whole, we do not want to force people to stay in accommodation centres for longer than six months when their claims have not been dealt with as quickly as we would hope. That is the most flexible way to proceed. In the trials, we can see whether a speedier process results from the new arrangements that bring services to accommodation centres and from a closer administrative approach. Those arrangements should assist individual asylum claimants and make the system more efficient so that hearings can be conducted in an effective and timely way. I suspect that big speed and efficiency gains will result. Time will tell with the trials.

Simon Hughes: I am well aware of how the Home Office operates and have been since long before the Minister took office, so I understand her reluctance to have her hands tied. I acknowledge that the Government would feel at risk if they committed themselves on a policy area where they have failed to deliver, to the detriment of everyone, for a long time. Rather than rehearse that debate, I shall ask her some final questions relating to a matter that is not expressly featured in the Bill—the time scale for processing applications and appeals.
 For the record, what are the Government's current intentions on the period in which an initial application is processed? What is current Government policy on the time limit for appeals? What changes are envisaged as targets for achievement in the near future? I understand that the process is being trialled, so it 
 may be months if not years before the specific targets are in place. As the Minister rightly says, the aim is to achieve speedier decisions, but the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), other Members and I are grappling with the problem in our offices every day. What is the current policy, and what is the speediest estimate of target time limits for the two processes?

Angela Eagle: I shall do my best to assist. The hon. Gentleman will know of existing targets: the two plus four process featured prominently in debates on the 1999 Bill. I placed the percentage achievements on the record earlier. Currently, about 50 per cent. of applications had initial decisions served within two months. The target was 60 per cent. and we achieved almost 50 per cent. About 45 per cent. of appeals now get through both tiers of the Immigration Appellate Authority in four months. That is the other element in the two plus four process—hence the six-month period.
 One of the key objectives will be to increase the number of appeals that can be dealt with in the six-month period. However, we shall want to assess the trials and consider the potential for increasing speed and effectiveness. We will also have the new induction centres and the reporting requirements for those who are dispersed and not in accommodation centres, and we will pay close attention to whether we can increase the speed and efficiency of the asylum process. Once the trials are complete, we will be in a better position to consider how to tighten the two plus four targets. We will also be open about that. 
 In the past few years, processing times have significantly improved, despite a huge increase in the number of claims for asylum. In April 1997, the average length of time between application and initial decision was 20 months. In December 2001—the last date for which we have audited figures—that was down to 13 months, which includes the backlog. When a backlog case is resolved, the average time goes up, as the case has been around for some time. I ask hon. Members to consider that. That is an improvement, despite the fact that, between 1996 and 2001, there was a 142 per cent. increase in asylum applications. The number of initial decisions has increased from 38,960 in 1996 to 118,195 by 2001—a 203 per cent. increase in four years. Appeals have increased by 101 per cent. from 22,985 in 1996 to 46,190 in 2000. Removals of asylum seekers have increased by 93 per cent. from 4,820 in 1996 to 9,285 in 2001. Those latest figures are significantly higher, despite the fact that there have been many more asylum claims. 
 I am the first to recognise that we still have much to achieve in our handling of individual cases. I want the Committee to recognise that many people are working hard under difficult circumstances, and have effected improvements. That does not mean that every case is dealt with as effectively and efficiently as it could be. Members of the Committee see many of the cases that are not dealt with in the most effective and appropriate way. However, some are dealt with effectively and appropriately, and we will continue to try to improve our methods for dealing with cases by legislative change and to slim down the appeal processes. 
 Simon Hughes: I accept and am grateful for that. I pay tribute to those who deal with Members' hotline cases, especially staff in the Minister's offices who are always courteous and helpful, as are many others in the immigration and nationality directorate. Will the Minister add one last statistic, so that we can pool all the statistics in one debate? How many caseworkers and those dealing with appeals were employed in 1997, and how many are employed now? I know that the numbers have increased. Do the Government plan to recruit more? It always seems to be a failure of the system that there are insufficient numbers of people to do the work.

Angela Eagle: There have certainly been major increases in the numbers of caseworkers. I do not have the figure to hand, but I think that there has been an increase of 1,000. If that is wrong, I will let the hon. Gentleman know later in the proceedings. We have doubled the resources devoted to initial decisions and appeals.
 There is much to do to streamline and strengthen the process. There are also many people in the process who do not co-operate fully, which makes it difficult. Some legal advisers do not give of their best. That is why we asked John Scampion to drive out the cowboys, so that when people get legal advice, it is the most effective, efficient and best for them. I hope that we can look forward to a significant improvement in processing time, which will be fairer for everyone involved—both the asylum seeker and workers in our system. That will enable us to give people their Geneva convention rights appropriately and not put anyone in danger. 
 I accept the amendment's spirit about the speed. It is easier said than done, but we are working hard to achieve it.

Humfrey Malins: I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply. She says that she hopes that there will be significant improvements over time, but significant improvements were forecast in Ministers' speeches on the 1999 Bill. They have not happened. The Home Office, which appeared to have completely lost control of asylum matters in 1999 and 2000, has improved its performance, but only slightly. The real point is that the more time that one has to do a job, the longer it will take. That affects everyone in life. There is no substitute for speed, because generally with speed comes efficiency. To put it another way, if we put a deadline on the job, it will generally get done.
 I reiterate a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. When people who have watched this Committee ask us why, when we had the chance, we did not legislate for a fast and efficient system, what will we say? Our proposal that people should stay in accommodation centres for a maximum of three months is designed to ensure that the Home Office reacts with speed and efficiency. If anyone argues that it is impossible to conclude a case within three or six months, I can direct them to parallels in the criminal justice system. Every day in this country, thousands of criminal offences take place. Do they take six months or a year to sort out? No, they do not. Following an arrest, offenders are likely to appear before a magistrates court within a 
 week. If the plea is not guilty, a trial often happens within a month. If the trial's decision is appealed, that appeal is often heard in the neighbouring Crown court within a month. From day one to its conclusion, the process takes about two or three months. That happens in a whole lot of cases. 
 Of course, some complex cases take longer, but some time limit should still be set. If one is not set, we will begin to wonder about the point of an accommodation centre. When we hear the Minister say that she is looking for flexibility, we should shudder, because flexibility means no rules or deadlines. When we hear the Minister say that six months is appropriate and other arrangements will have to be made if people stay at an accommodation centre for longer, we should shudder because it is Home Office speak for refusing to have efficiency imposed on the system. It is our duty as a Committee to impose that efficiency.

Karen Buck: I have profound sympathy with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments. In my casework, I find it incredibly frustrating when decisions take so long. However, the point that I made during my intervention on the Minister remains. There was an explosion in the number of appeals because of non-compliance and technical failures in the process. The hon. Gentleman equates speed with efficiency, but that is not borne out by the practice of the last few years. It would be worrying if an arbitrary time limit led to another upturn in the number of technical failures.

Humfrey Malins: I take the hon. Lady's point, particularly about non-compliance. However, she very generously began her intervention by saying that she had profound sympathy for our view. I believe that her Back-Bench colleagues feel the same. This is one of those rare amendments when I feel duty bound to urge Government Back Benchers to support the Opposition. What is more, knowing the track record of some of them on asylum work, I suspect that, like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), they not only feel profound sympathy with, but may support the amendment to bring to the Home Office a real sense of the need to act quickly, which has been lacking so often.

Karen Buck: Were the amendment to be pressed to a vote, I would not be able to support it despite sympathising absolutely with the principle. I do not feel that setting an arbitrary time limit will lead to an equation of speed with efficiency. It will result in another backing-up of the appeals process, and will therefore have almost the opposite effect. I am reluctant to say this, but it will have an unintended, undesirable consequence.

Humfrey Malins: I disagree. I should not have been so confident of the hon. Lady's support for the amendment, although perhaps my confidence should remain in that I am sure she will abstain and not vote against it because of her sympathy for it. I mentioned the criminal justice system. There are parallels. It is possible to deal with weighty matters quickly given the will and the resources. If it is a question of resources, are there problems with the Treasury?
 Angela Eagle: Can the hon. Gentleman share with the Committee his view of the costs of attempting to get all asylum claims heard within five weeks?

Humfrey Malins: I do not suppose that the Minister herself has any idea of that cost, but in general I hope that she will accept that the quicker a job is done, the cheaper it is likely to be, especially given the knock-on expenses if someone waits for longer. If the Minister wants evidence of that, I refer her to the £1,620 a week that it costs to keep someone in Oakington. Does it become cheaper or more expensive the longer that person stays?

Angela Eagle: Oakington cases are special cases. Something like 96 per cent. of them are refused. They are straightforward, which is why they are allocated to Oakington in the first place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will admit that by no means all the cases that we have to deal with are that simple and easy to dispose of quickly.

Humfrey Malins: I made it clear a moment ago that not all cases are straightforward. Some are more straightforward than others; one or two are more difficult. The Minister will know that, if it costs £1,620 to keep someone at Oakington for a week, it will cost a fair amount to keep someone at an accommodation centre. I do not expect her to know the figure, but for the sake of argument let us say that it is £1,000 a week. Presumably £1,000 a week for six months is a lot more expensive than £1,000 a week for two months.
 The Minister made a mistake in suggesting that I had to justify my position that speed would result in more expense—quite the reverse. I think that speed would result in money being saved that could go into—[Interruption.] I hope that that is not my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) telling me that I have said the wrong thing. The reality is that a speedy process will be more efficient.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that some evidence is emerging, not least from the Immigration Advisory Service, that the length of time for which someone is held—wherever they are held—can result in their requiring extra medical treatment? I am thinking about the psychiatric implications of prolonged detention. I believe that evidence from Finland shows that the longer the period of detention, the greater the likelihood of adverse effects, and therefore many of the affected individuals will require medical treatment that involves extensive costs.
 9.45 am

Humfrey Malins: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who points out that the longer the period during which the claim subsists, the more likely it is that there will be extra medical and other expenses. She is exactly right to cite foreign examples.
 I shall now ask the Minister specific questions, and I should like her to be as precise as she can. Does she envisage that asylum seekers will be present at an accommodation centre throughout the whole process, from application to conclusion of appeal? Does she envisage that the process will take no more than six months, except in a handful of cases? 
 It would be helpful if the Minister could give full answers, but the way in which the debate has gone suggests that she will find it hard to summarise the real benefits of accommodation centres. If there is to be no legislative pressure on the Government to have the cases of persons in those centres decided in a narrow timeframe, there will be no difference from what happens to those outside the centres. 
 The Minister has asked for time, but the Government have had time—1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. The asylum problems have got more and more difficult every year. I shall not recite again the figures that I quoted the other day about applications, appeals, determinations and removals, but they make for sorry reading. The Government say that they will consider these issues, have some trials and see how fast accommodation centres work. However, the Minister tells us that if the centres are up and running by mid to late 2003, they will perhaps wait for a year to see how they go and then get some figures. That means that we shall probably not have the first results until the end of 2004—two and a half years from now. 
 Every member of the Committee knows that asylum applications up to determination and the appeal process take too long. We also know that, apart from the cost, the longer the process takes, the less it is in the interests of the asylum seeker and his or her family, who cannot help but put down roots. In humanitarian terms, therefore, it becomes more difficult by the month—by the year, sometimes—to remove someone. If we are to make the slightest difference to the asylum system, it is essential that cases are handled with more speed and thus more efficiency. Otherwise, what are we doing here? A greater turnover would be in everyone's interest. 
 That is why the Opposition believed it right to table an amendment to tell the Government that no one must spend more than three months in an accommodation centre. It is time that we, as legislators, put down rules governing how much time is taken to do the job. That is why I want to press the amendment to a vote.

Angela Eagle: I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman that flexibility means lack of rules. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I believe that the law of unintended consequences operates with arbitrary time limits. Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, technical refusals on first tier appeal moved the pressure on to the appeals systems without considering the initial decision effectively.

Humfrey Malins: If the Minister is so reluctant to have a time limit, can she explain why the Home Secretary laid down a time limit in juvenile courts for the period between arrest or charge and disposal of a case for a juvenile? That succeeded, so why is there no parallel in this case?

Angela Eagle: There are no relevant parallels between examining asylum claims and dealing with those who have committed crimes under the criminal justice system. Asylum claims are different. They often require further inquiry with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other countries to
 discover what may have happened in particular states. If someone claims to have been tortured, we must often establish identity first. Individuals often arrive on our shores having destroyed all their identity documents and claiming nationalities that they do not have.
 I share the aim of all members of the Committee that we deal with all asylum claims as quickly and effectively as possible. I do not see how a statutory time limit on the length of time that someone may stay in an accommodation centre achieves that. If the period were three months and someone's claim had not yet been dealt with, we would have to move them from the accommodation centre to somewhere else at great disruption to the system and using many of the resources that we want to use to get the appeals system right.

Karen Buck: Does the Minister agree that we run the risk of giving priority to accommodation centres by placing a time limit on the people in them? There may be a financial argument for doing so. However, only a tiny minority of people making claims for asylum will be in accommodation centres at any time, while the vast majority of asylum claims will probably end up further up the system at the same time. The priority must be to introduce resources to process everyone's claims quickly and efficiently, regardless of whether they are in accommodation centres or dispersal.

Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is the Government's intention. It would be arbitrary to have a time limit for one part of the system that is being trialled, but no time limits for other parts of the system. Such a time limit merely provides an incentive to move a claimant who happens to be in an accommodation centre. That accords with the law, but not with the intention behind the time limits in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking.
 We are trialling accommodation centres to see whether having people in one place allows us to process claims faster and more efficiently without compromising fairness to the claimants, but gives them a good and humane experience of the system. My guess is that we can achieve that with accommodation centres, but that has to be proved by the trial. If accommodation centres were then to become the norm and the dispersal system were ended, the statutory limit would create total chaos, because there would be nowhere else to send people in those circumstances. The primary legislation would provide that they could stay in an accommodation centre for three months, but if everything was not finished by the end of that time, that would be it. 
 I cannot accept the amendments, and I have tried to show the Committee that we do not want people to stay for ever in accommodation centres if their claims are not processed for some reason. I do not accept the Oakington parallels, because only particular and straightforward cases go to Oakington. I do not accept the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about prolonged detention, because people will not be detained in accommodation centres. There is a difference between accommodation and detention centres. 
 I warn Opposition Members about the law of unintended consequences. We intend to trial the new system to assess the potential gains in processing times, which I believe will be significant. I hope that, with my undertakings, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, which would cause chaos.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate that my choice of words was perhaps incorrect and that I should not have used the word ''detention''. Will the Minister tell us how long she would consider as unacceptable? Does the Minister consider nine months as the outer limit or would she hope to come under that line?

Angela Eagle: On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that six months was about right. My only hesitation, apart from the administrative consequences of having a statutory bar in the Bill, is that there may be circumstances in which someone was expecting the final decision or due to be deported a day or two after the six months. If the amendment were accepted, we would be required to move them somewhere else. It is those situations that I am imagining when I talk about flexibility. We would have to move some people to removal centres, but that may not be appropriate for all. Decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, and the people who are taken to removal centres are those who are thought likely to abscond.

Humfrey Malins: If there are the odd exceptions, will the Minister consider drafting her own amendment on Report to the effect that no one should spend more than three months in an accommodation centre save in exceptional circumstances?

Angela Eagle: No, I will not, and I hope that the Committee will now understand why.
 I shall move on to the specific questions put by the hon. Member for Woking before I forget them and he thinks that I am trying to get out of answering them. He asked whether individuals would be at accommodation centres throughout the whole process. That would be our intention in most circumstances as we trial, but it may be more appropriate for certain individuals to move out. There is no set yes or no, but the hon. Gentleman may assume that we want to achieve that, although there may be some flexibility around the edges. 
 I hope that the process will take no more than six months other than in a handful of cases. If an individual's application looked like it was suddenly going to become much more difficult, it would be up to us to decide whether it was appropriate to have them in the accommodation centre. The individual arrangements made for the support of asylum seekers are always under review as their circumstances change. 
 In answer to the hon. Gentleman's assertion that there will be no difference in accommodation centres, I hope and believe that accommodation centres will be able to deliver a faster and more effective, efficient and accurate end-to-end processing system. The trials will have to prove that one way or the other. That is my current belief, but it is important to test that before we change the system, so that we get the most effective solution to difficult problems.

Humfrey Malins: I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I remain disappointed. The Minister would not budge, even when I suggested that, because there would be the exceptional case in which someone would stay longer, it might be helpful to have an amendment saying that the stay should be no longer than three months save in exceptional circumstances. The Government are putting forward too many reasons for doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option.
 At this rate, I have extremely high hopes that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North will vote with the official Opposition on a number of matters. On Tuesday when I moved an amendment, she said that she had some sympathy with my point. Today she said that she had a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. It can only go one way. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 9, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
 This brings us on to subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) reads: 
''The Secretary of State may make regulations about procedure to be followed in respect of the provision of accommodation under this section.''
 There is nothing wrong with that. Subsection (3) lists six categories of activity that can be subject to those regulations. Five—(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f)—seem unexceptional and unproblematic. They deal with applying for accommodation; providing for one application to be combined with an application in relation to another piece of legislation; requiring an applicant to provide information; the way in which the Secretary of State makes inquiries; and requiring a person to notify the Secretary of State of a change in circumstances. Those five categories imply that the Secretary of State would expect people to apply formally to go to accommodation centres. Is that the intention or would the Government usually allocate them without a formal application? 
 Subsection (3)(d) is clearly the most controversial and worrying. The amendment, which is a probing amendment, would remove it. Under subsection (3)(d), the regulations make provision 
''specifying circumstances in which an application may not be considered''.
 We want to know what those circumstances are. It is an obvious point. We are in agreement about the principle that someone in an accommodation centre is 
 in the same category as someone who is being supported. We shall soon move on to debate the link between accommodation and financial support and whether it still applies for people in dispersal out in the community. Amendments have been tabled to deal with that. Will the Minister explain the Government's intentions and whether subsection (3)(d) is necessary?

Angela Eagle: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman fairly quickly. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from specifying in regulations the circumstances in which an application for asylum may not be considered. The regulations specify the circumstances in which someone can apply for asylum support, and they can do so if they are destitute. The Secretary of State then allocates them to an accommodation centre or to the National Asylum Support Service for dispersal. The test of destitution is the same. The removal of the paragraph would prevent us from specifying that a particular application form should be used. It is as simple as that to apply for support. It is important administratively that people apply in the same way, so that applications can be processed effectively. There are no other implications. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having probed our intentions, will withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: If that is all that the provision is intended to do, it is perfectly reasonable. It was proper to ask the question through the probing amendment.
 It is important to have two safeguards. First, for all legislation, we like to see the draft regulations as soon as possible. Will the Minister tell us—if not in this debate, on clause stand part—how soon we can expect to examine the draft regulations? I put down a marker by saying that we should be able to see them at the end of proceedings in Committee at the latest. We should have a chance to reflect before we meet on Report. 
 Secondly, when we reach the procedure for agreeing to regulations, which embraces affirmative and negative resolution, I hope that the Minister accepts that the affirmative rather than the negative procedure should apply to a subject as controversial as nationality, asylum and immigration claims.

Angela Eagle: I accept that regulations should be available for consideration as soon as possible. The particular regulations that apply here are not expected to be vastly different from those already operating, particularly regarding application for asylum. The Bill is unlikely to change that process. The difference comes with the allocation of people to accommodation centres rather than to National Asylum Support Service accommodation. The regulations are purely administrative, dealing with how to apply for asylum, what forms are appropriate and how quickly they should be submitted. We do not anticipate great changes in respect of the new procedures that will come into force when the Bill becomes an Act. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hughes: It is partly reassuring. Let me raise one last point before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment. Other colleagues may have heard a discussion this morning on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and when a resignation is not a resignation. In it, there
 was also some discussion of plain English, which brings me to the fact that the clause is confusing. The Under-Secretary and her civil servants should look at it, as it appears to mix applications for support and for accommodation, which is a drafting matter.
 The clause is headed 
''Support for destitute asylum-seeker''. 
Subsection (3) starts: 
''The regulations may, in particular, make provision—
(a) specifying procedure to be followed in applying for accommodation in an accommodation centre'',
 which clearly does not mean support in the financial sense. The Under-Secretary said that, under subsection (3)(d), an application may not be considered if it is not on the right forms, but that seems to apply to applications for support. 
 As I understand the Under-Secretary's comments—this has always been my understanding—asylum seekers will not apply to go to accommodation centres. Unless there has been a policy change, the procedure is not like booking a hotel, when people fill in a form and Saga Holidays arranges for them to go to the Isle of Wight. The clause seems to refer to two sorts of application and it moves from one to the other without it being clear which is which.

Angela Eagle: I accept the hon. Gentleman's desire, which we all share, for plain English in legislation. I am not sure whether we always manage to produce plain English, and I suspect that he has found an example of where have not. It might be reasonable to conclude from subsection (3)(a) that there will be a choice of whether to go into NASS accommodation or an accommodation centre, but there will not be. The accommodation allocation procedures will not involve asylum seekers being able to choose, just as there is no choice in the current system. The criteria used will include, for example, the port of arrival. Clearly, I shall pass his comments to parliamentary counsel.

Simon Hughes: In opposition, one sometimes contents oneself with small victories in Committee. It is obviously better that we make the Bill clear for those who will use it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I have three points to make. First, the Under-Secretary and other colleagues will have noticed that I did not vote with the Conservatives on the three-month provision. I hope that the reasons were obvious, but let me put them on the record. Although a three-month period is a wonderful aspiration, in reality it is too short and the advice that we have collected is that six months would be reasonable. I did not press the relevant amendment, because time is tight, and I am sure that we shall return to these matters on Report. It is also a pretty good bet that colleagues at the other end of the building will take particular interest in the issue. They will be more resolute in pressing amendments on time and more able to have them accepted. It is therefore better to save our collective energies for later.
 Secondly, the Under-Secretary rightly mentioned the improved processes for regulating those who advise people. I am grateful for the work of John Scampion and his colleagues, and my staff have been to their meetings. However, let me put one additional point in the Under-Secretary's mind. I am concerned that the Law Society has defended the current arrangements, under which solicitors who offer immigration advice and assistance need not be approved and confirmed. It is right that advisers, who are not practising solicitors, must be approved, and we have got rid of a lot of shady characters who collected money for providing very inadequate or, indeed, no services. 
 I understand that those who have qualified as a solicitor can hold themselves to practise immigration law, just as they can practise any other form of law. My day-to-day experience is that solicitors in some firms are still as poor in this field as people who are not qualified. Although there are some very good solicitors, in my surgeries and casework I regularly have to rescue people from poor solicitors and tell them not to use those persons any more. I say that they should ask for their money back and go to another firm or a not-for-profit non-governmental organisation, which would give them better advice. The problem is that those organisations are weighed down with work and under pressure. Will the Minister consider that issue? The Law Society has a vested interest in saying, ''Of course we must be perfect, but we can regulate ourselves.'' I have never been quite of that view.

Eric Illsley: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the clause.

Simon Hughes: I hoped that I was within the limits, but I have made the point and need not go any further.
 It will be crucial, when the choices as to where people go are made not by the individual but by the system, to attempt, even on a trial basis, to group appropriate people in appropriate places. The point is self-evident, but it will probably make the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful system. In addition to the length of time and size of the place, the third issue that will determine whether the measure works—I wish it well and we support the concept—is that of grouping people in the right place with the right categories of other people, so that they spend their time profitably in accommodation centres in the most compatible environment.

Humfrey Malins: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not mean the majority of solicitors—he must mean the minority. He should declare the fact that he is a qualified barrister. Barristers normally protect solicitors, but that is a matter for another debate. We have had a full argument on the issue of time. I hope that in the intervening period the Under-Secretary will consider with her colleagues whether there is a possibility of coming back on Report with a time limit, even if it is couched in terms of exceptional circumstances. I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that these matters will be returned to. They are very
 important to many people and we hope that they will get a full airing in the other place.

Angela Eagle: I could hear the harrumphing around the Room when the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said something nasty about the Law Society. We always bear such things in mind, but if solicitors are giving legal advice and getting public money to do so they must be quality-marked in order to gain access to that money. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind complaints concerning particular firms that he wishes to draw to our attention, we will certainly consider the matter.
 All the people placed in accommodation centres will be grouped in a sensible way. It is not our intention that the trials should fail—we will try to give them the best hope of success. There might be an underlying view that life for asylum seekers in accommodation centres will be much worse than under dispersal arrangements—hence the proposals for time limits to get people out quickly and the idea that they should not stay. However, if we get this right, asylum seekers might want to stay in accommodation centres to facilitate their asylum claims. We hope that the environment will be much more supportive, with many facilities on site, and that the communities that develop will be supportive rather than isolating, as happened with some dispersal accommodation. All that remains to be seen. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Asylum-seeker: definition

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 9, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 131, in page 10, line 4, after '18', insert—
'for whom he is the parent or guardian'.
 No. 172, in page 10, line 5, at end insert— 
'or 
 (c) it is not practicable for him to return to any other country.'.

Humfrey Malins: I will be very brief on the amendments, which are drafting points.
 Amendment No. 130 is designed to delete clause 16(1)(c), which states that a person is an asylum seeker if he is 18, a claim has been made and the Secretary of State has recorded it. The point is simple. In my view, the claim for asylum is made when it is made, not when it is recorded or filed away by the Home Office. Given the propensity of the Home Office not to act immediately on the making of an asylum claim it seems that a person is an asylum seeker if he is an 18-year-old and has made an asylum claim at a designated place. To say that he is not an asylum seeker until the Secretary of State has recorded the claim is to give the Secretary of State ages and ages to file the claim. After all, in most other matters in life, one becomes a claimant when one makes the claim; 
 one does not have to wait until the claim has been recorded. It is a drafting point, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it by accepting the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 131 was suggested to me by a most respected NGO, the Immigration Advisory Service. It is an anti-trafficking and anti-child abuse proposal that is designed to ensure that minors not under social services supervision are kept only in the company and care of people who are genuinely responsible for their best interests. 
 My amendments are minor, and I hope that the Government will take them on board.

Simon Hughes: It is obvious that I support amendment No. 130. I hope that the Minister will accept it. She has said before that papers can get stuck in the post, and it is nonsense that an application should have to wait until it is recorded. There are rules for determining when a claim is made, and they need to be made even more specific.
 I am sympathetic to amendment No. 131. The hon. Member for Woking is well motivated, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. 
 Amendment No. 172 has its origin in the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. Sometimes, when asylum applications are been determined negatively, some categories of people—the Minister hinted at them earlier—are not able to leave the United Kingdom immediately. Perhaps things have changed in their country, and it is understandable that they cannot go back there. It is important to ensure that such people receive support; they should not suddenly be left destitute when, through no fault of theirs, they are unable to return or to be sent back where they come from—or even somewhere else. 
 I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department will respond positively. I am happy to work with her on the drafting if a different form of words is needed. I hope that the Government will accept the point.

Cheryl Gillan: I support amendments Nos. 130 and 131, not least because the latter is anti-trafficking and anti-child abuse. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will comment on that additional safeguard.
 It seems to me that there has been a bit of sloppiness in the drafting of clause 16. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary is unable to accept amendment No. 130, I hope that she will consider inserting the word ''or'' after paragraph (b), and then adding, under paragraph (c), that the Secretary of State has recorded ''a'' claim; it would be an and/or provision which could also act as a vehicle for tidying up the drafting. One would hope that if the hon. Lady is unable to accept these perfectly reasonable amendments, she will come forward at a later stage with amendments to tidy up the drafting.

Rosie Winterton: Perhaps it would help if I set out some background to the clause, which defines an asylum seeker for the purposes of deciding who may be placed in an accommodation centre. Such a person must be at least 18 years old and have made a
 claim under the refugee convention or article 3 of the European convention on human rights. That claim must have been recorded by the Secretary of State but not yet determined. A person whose household contains a dependent child under 18 will, unless that person is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, continue to be treated as an asylum seeker while he and the child remain in the UK. He will continue to be eligible to reside in an accommodation centre.
 I hope that I can reassure hon. Members, given the points that they made. Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 affect the definition of an asylum seeker for the purposes of support in accommodation centres. Provisions on the recording of the claim have been included because we want to ensure more administrative certainty, to avoid confusion and disagreement about whether a claim has been made. They differ from previous provisions on the subject, because they state that the claim would be recorded 
''at a place designated by the Secretary of State''.
 The hon. Member for Woking asked about the relevant issue being whether the claim had been made or recorded. The recording is purely administrative, and there should be no delay in it. For example, there have been difficulties with postal applications, for which the recording has been subject to some dispute. One reason for the provisions is to clarify that. Confusion needs to be removed, as the recording is relevant to eligibility for support under part 2 of the Bill. It is important to have administrative certainty on when someone receives support in an accommodation centre. We must be clear that a claim has been recorded, so that eligibility for support is clear.

Humfrey Malins: Yes, but what examples can the hon. Lady give of asylum applications having been made and there then being huge gaps before they are recorded or filed? My understanding is that there have been dozens or hundreds during the past year or two. What safeguard has the applicant to cope with that?

Rosie Winterton: The main difficulty with applications that have been made, or that asylum seekers have said have been made, then being recorded has occurred in postal applications. Approximately 500 postal applications are made each month. Our aim, especially with regard to people supported in accommodation centres, is to ensure that all new applicants are screened when they make their application. That means that the recording—it can be a manual recording or an entry on a database—would be done extremely quickly. There should be no delay between the application being made and its being recorded. Because of the insertion that it must be made at a designated place, it should be done there and then. It would be done person-to-person, face-to-face. That means that we can be clear that a claim has been recorded, and the person will then be eligible for support.

Humfrey Malins: So, from the time when the Bill becomes law, a person will be an asylum seeker if, among other things, he makes a claim for asylum at a
 designated place, in person. Does that mean that a claim is not an application unless it is made in person at a designated place, and it is goodbye to postal applications? If that is the case, the claim should become an asylum application as soon as it is made.

Rosie Winterton: Exactly. That is my point. Because the claim is recorded at a designated place, it will be possible for that person to be eligible for support in the accommodation centre.

Simon Hughes: Perhaps I was not listening, but I cannot see how that is compatible with the convention. If someone smuggles himself into this country, to Leicester or Southwark, for example, and is advised to seek asylum, and either writes a letter to the Home Office or a letter is sent on his behalf or delivered by hand, surely that is a valid asylum application. In no country that I am aware of do people have to present themselves formally at a statutory place for their applications to be considered.

Rosie Winterton: We are talking about eligibility for support, with particular regard to accommodation centres. At the same time as making the application at a designated place, an applicant will receive a registration card, on which it is verified that he or she is an asylum seeker. The hon. Member for Woking raised the issue of postal applications. In the past, there have been fraudulent or multiple postal applications, and we want to ensure that, as part of the process, we keep a proper record of applications and of where people move on to, whether to an accommodation centre or the dispersal systems. We want to ensure that, from the beginning, there is no administrative confusion and no unnecessary delay built into the system. The surest way to do that is to state that applications may be made at designated places.
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is, perhaps, referring to the problem that would arise if there were insufficient designated places for people to report to and make their applications. I can reassure him on that because we will certainly ensure that there are enough places for claims to be made. I cannot see why that would be incompatible with the 1951 convention.

Simon Hughes: Let me give another example. Someone may come into this country on a student or visitor's visa, and be in Shetland, the outer Hebrides, Anglesey or Londonderry—it could be anywhere. Circumstances may change in that person's home country and he or she may need to make an asylum application. It cannot be sensible bureaucratically to have asylum claim centres in Lerwick and Stornaway. It must be better for an individual to go to a local advice centre, citizens advice bureau, solicitor, friend or priest who can write a letter to the Home Office or to the immigration and nationality directorate on that person's behalf. Surely we are not going down the road of establishing centres. If we are, and they can be everywhere, that is fine, but it would cost a fortune.

Rosie Winterton: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Most people will claim asylum immediately on arrival in the UK. Those who do not will have legally entered the country in some other
 capacity or have entered illegally. In the example that he gives, those who have entered legally are unlikely to be regarded as destitute, because they would have had support in order to be granted leave in the first place—they might have come under an employment category or have a sponsor.
 Illegal entrants are, obviously, expected to bring themselves to the attention of the authorities as quickly as possible. If they do, by presenting themselves at a reporting centre to make a claim, suitable arrangements will be made for their application to be made in advance of a claim for support and accommodation from NASS. We cannot provide support for people who do not bring themselves to our attention. It is important to have a system that, as far as possible, allows us to record claims as clearly as we can from the beginning of the process.

Humfrey Malins: Clearly, the Parliamentary Secretary and her officials have done a great deal of thinking about the places that will be designated for making a claim. Given the amount of work that must have gone into that, can she say roughly how many there will be in the United Kingdom—10, 50, 500? That must have been discussed, and I should be most grateful for an answer.

Rosie Winterton: At the moment, the majority of locations that would be designated as places for people to make claims—the Croydon asylum screening unit, any port or any airport—are those at which people would arrive from abroad. It is difficult to give an exact number. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look beyond those examples and will consider local reporting centres, local enforcement offices, casework centres and so on, so that we provide the most accessible places possible for people to make their claims. It is an important part of any strategy to ensure that people can find support when they want it, and that their claims can be made and recorded quickly and easily—either manually on a database—making them eligible for support. That will avoid much of the confusion that has arisen.

Cheryl Gillan: The more we explore what seemed to be a simple definition of asylum seeker, the more we reveal the layers of the onion. The Parliamentary Secretary now suggests that there will be a vast array of reception points for asylum applications. At this stage, I would like to know the answer to the question about numbers asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, and what the cost and organisational implications are. We appear to be entering a phase of increasing bureaucracy and complexity.

Rosie Winterton: Quite the opposite is the case. What causes administrative problems, extra bureaucracy and increased costs is not knowing where people are. It only increases costs if we cannot verify at an early stage, for example, that the people making applications are who they say they are. Having face-to-face interviews is an important part of that.
 Claims can be made at existing facilities—we shall not have to create completely new facilities. The 
 measure will not create greater difficulties for the applicant or for the system, as we are making the system clearer from the word go and minimising any possible fraud. Unfortunately, such fraud is possible under the present system.

Gregory Barker: In addition to airports and Croydon, which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, she referred specifically to local centres. What does local mean—local to where and to whom?

Rosie Winterton: I have already said that we would consider using local reporting centres or places in which casework happens. We must look at individual areas and consider what facilities we can make use of. It would not be sensible to determine a particular mileage in an area in advance. We need to consider what is sensible in an area in terms of access for people.

Simon Hughes: It is important that we reflect on the matters that we are debating and get them right. We should bear it in mind that the clause relates simply to definition of asylum seekers.
 I have two points. First, the Government have not said whether they are getting rid of postal and other forms of applications, and it would be helpful to know whether that was the policy and when that policy was made. Secondly, if there is supposed to be a network of reporting centres for the purposes of registration, why is that not stated in the Bill? Accommodation centres are referred to in the Bill—why not registration centres? 
 There are two entirely new policies here, in relation to which none of us had any notice. They increase bureaucracy and put an end to what seemed a moderately successful system, with 6,000 people a year putting in applications that were processed by the IND.

Rosie Winterton: There is nothing sinister in saying that we are making it easier for people to make claims in person. Current everyday practice is that all port applicants and anyone who applies at the asylum screening unit in Croydon go through the process that I have described. We simply want to extend that practice.
 There is no doubt that there have been difficulties with postal applications. I hope that hon. Members accept the need to consider those problems, some of which we can remove through the new system. Whether the problems are caused deliberately or not, there have been difficulties with postal applications because people do not get the sort of personal assistance that they would get in a face-to-face interview. That, too, is an important part of the process.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way; she has been most generous. I hope that she does not mind our pressing her, but we have some anxieties about this matter. She told the Committee that she would widen the network of places designated by the Secretary of State to receive claims for asylum. What criteria will be used for the
 examinations and what time scale will apply? When will the designated places be fully listed, and how will the information be made available so that people can see it? What are the cost implications and will police stations or local government offices be used? I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to allay my fears that policy is being made on the hoof in an attempt to be generous, but has not been thought through. I want to ensure that parameters are laid down.

Rosie Winterton: As I indicated earlier, existing facilities will be used. We must weigh the costs associated with the problems of postal applications and the possibility of detrimental effects on the asylum seeker against, on the other hand, fraud, which can be extremely costly. We must also weigh that against the proposal announced in a statement to the House by the Home Secretary on 29 October, that we would expand reporting centres. We do not need primary legislation to do that.
 As I said before, we are making a perfectly straightforward attempt to ensure that we know where people are from start to finish, that claims are properly recorded and—this is the point—that we can then process claims more quickly and make support available to asylum seekers. We are simply trying to ensure that our system is improved. The proposal has been thought about extremely carefully and we are confident that it will improve efficiency, reduce any confusion and help to cut down on fraud. There is nothing more than that in what we are trying to do. A proposal has already been announced, and the clause follows it through. Overall, it will lead to greater efficiency and possible savings. It is important to improve the system and the Bill will help to do that. 
 Let me set out the background to amendment No. 131. Our commitment is to provide support to a person whose household includes a dependant child under 18. That reflects an existing provision in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The aim is to continue to support children who would otherwise need to be supported by the local authority. 
 I take note of the points made about trafficking, but that is covered in part 7. It is an important issue. Although, in the majority of cases, those involved would be the parents or guardians of children, there may be other situations to consider—for example, when an aunt, uncle or stepchild is involved. The amendment would reduce our ability to define a dependant in secondary legislation. We need some flexibility. I am sure that hon. Members accept that there are different types of relationship, which can be more complex than straightforward ones that involve only a parent or guardian. We do not want to be restricted in that respect. 
 Amendment No. 172 would require us to continue to offer support to a person whose asylum claim had been determined, but whom it was not practicable to return to another country. It goes without saying that we want to support those who are seeking asylum and are destitute, but once a claim has been determined, they should no longer qualify for such support unless their household includes a dependent child under 18. Those who are granted refugee status will qualify for mainstream benefits but in general we will expect 
 people who are refused and who have no basis to stay to leave. 
 That said, there are obvious difficulties in returning people to certain territories, and I think that that is what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is getting at. A practical example would be someone from northern Iraq, who was unable to return to that part of the world. If a person has demonstrated that there is a genuine reason why they cannot leave the UK and that is through no fault of their own, or that a judicial challenge against a decision is not without merit, they may make an application under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In doing so, they would have to show that they could get no other support from friends, relatives or charities. It is right to offer support under that section, but it is different from the support that they would have been offered previously. 
 If the hon. Gentleman is also trying to discover whether that support would continue to be provided in accommodation centres, I refer him to clause 21(4), which says that people in the centres can be eligible for section 4 support if that is deemed necessary. I hope that that provides some reassurance and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: This has been an intriguing debate. It began with my saying that it would be brief, because I wanted to put only a couple of small drafting amendments to the Minister. Lo and behold, as the debate developed, it suddenly became clear that what appeared to my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I to be two major policy issues were being revealed.
 We have been told in the clearest possible terms that from now on—or perhaps from next week, or from the date when the Bill comes into force—all asylum applications must be made in person. Furthermore, we have been told that they must be made at 
''a place designated by the Secretary of State'',
 but we do not know where those places are. If I were a Minister—I am not one yet, and the way I am going I might never be one—I would ask the Whip to move that the Committee should suspend for a fortnight so that the proposals could be set out in clauses that could be properly debated by the Committee. However, were I the Whip, I would tell the Minister, ''No, I won't. Let's proceed.'' That is how this place works 
 There is potentially a much longer discussion to be had about some of the matters that have been raised during the debate by the Parliamentary Secretary. They relate to the proposed centres and the way in which an application is to be made in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to define what ''local'' meant, to determine how many centres there would be, but the answer was that ''it might mean local'', so we are none the wiser. 
 Life is full of surprises, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for her helpful reply about amendment No. 131. I will not press the amendment 
 to a Division, but we shall return to the more substantive part of the clause in due course.

Simon Hughes: I shall not push for a vote either, but we must reflect on the issues arising from the debate. Unless I missed it, I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that there will be no postal applications. Given that there are 6,000 at the moment, I assume that postal applications will continue. If they do, problems in the system mean that the process will need to be changed along the lines set out in the lead amendment so that asylum claims start from the moment the application is made.
 The issue is not a big one in my constituency, because Beckett house is close enough to be a local registration centre. However, I do not envisage there being places at which people can see immigration officials and register with the Home Office in every part of the United Kingdom, no matter how small the island or population. That is inconceivable, so keeping postal applications is sensible. The bulk of people apply either at ports of entry, when there is simultaneous application and recording, or in a way that does not have a distance in time between the application and recording. However, we must avoid bureaucracy that means that an asylum seeker who has a perfectly good case is not regarded as having made an application because they have not visited the regional centre. We must protect the way in which applications are made under the convention. 
 I understand the Parliamentary Secretary's point about clause 21, which gives the cover. I shall look back at the earlier legislation, but the important point is that we agree that there must be facilities for someone who is stuck here and does not have their own resources. If their application has ended but they cannot go home, we must not suddenly say, ''Sorry, but we're not doing anything''. I am sure that there is common intention about that. I will examine the Minister's comments. It may be that they cover the eventualities. 
 My only concern for the Parliamentary Secretary and her civil servants is that people whose case has ended must clearly and understandably be told that they have the opportunity of another support system and that if they want it, they must apply there and then. It must be unlike housing benefit and council tax benefit applications, in which it is too late for someone to do anything about it if they realise that they have not applied in time. For people without English as a first language and who are unfamiliar with the traditions, there must be a good safeguard to ensure that they know exactly what is needed to keep them supported.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in page 10, line 13, after '1950', add
'or Article 8 (''right to private life'') of that Convention.'.
 This is another sensible amendment that has been suggested to me by the Immigration Advisory Service. It deals with a short but relevant point. There are a small number of article 8 claims based on the right to private life where someone would qualify for exceptional leave to remain if the application were successful. Their need for support is just as great as that of someone whose case is based on article 3 of the 1951 convention. The amendment is as simple as that, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Simon Hughes: I support the amendment for the same reason, and I hope that the Government will be positive.

Rosie Winterton: I cannot be as positive as hon. Gentlemen would like, but I am able to give some reassurance.
 The definition of an asylum claim includes a claim that removing a person would be contrary to our obligations under article 3 of the European convention on human rights. That makes sense, given the overlap in some cases between a fear of persecution under the refugee convention and the prohibition of torture under article 3. When we assess whether someone can be removed to a particular country, there is a clear link between fear of persecution and subjection to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result. 
 The right to private life is a different matter, as it does not involve fear of persecution or torture. We therefore do not believe that there is any reason why it should be treated as an asylum claim. If it were, that would considerably widen the number of people who would be considered to qualify for support. The question would also arise why we should not regard all claims made under any article of the ECHR as an asylum claim, which would allow support to be offered. I hope that hon. Members accept that that would be unrealistic, especially in view of the potential cost. However, I assure hon. Members that we would consider someone's rights under the ECHR, including the right to private life, when assessing whether they should be removed from the UK. I hope that the hon. Member for Woking understands why we cannot accept the amendment, and that he will withdraw it.

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to the Minister. I am partly, if not wholly, reassured, and I do not wish to press the amendment to a vote. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: We must get the clause right, as it is the lynchpin—the definition section—on which the rest of the Bill depends. I hope that we will have a chance to reflect on earlier debates, and agree to any necessary amendments.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Eric Illsley: Before we discuss clause 17, I should clarify that we will rise at 11.25 am and suspend the
 Committee until 2.30 pm. I intend to break at 4.30 pm for 30 minutes.

Clause 17 - Destitution: definition

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in page 10, line 17, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

Eric Illsley: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 174, in page 10, line 21, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
 No. 175, in page 10, line 32, leave out subsection (5). 
 No. 176, in page 10, line 36, leave out paragraph (a). 
 No. 133, in page 10, line 39, at end insert 
'having regard to all the circumstances'.
 Government amendment No. 104. 
 No. 134, in page 10, line 43, at end insert 
'having regard to all the circumstances'
 Government amendment No. 105. 
 No. 209, in clause 35, page 18, line 31, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'. 
 No. 210, in page 18, line 35, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'. 
 No. 212, in page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (7). 
 No. 213, in page 19, line 11, leave out paragraph (a). 
 Government amendments Nos. 120 to 122.

Simon Hughes: I shall speak to the appropriate amendments in the group. Amendment No. 133 is a joint effort between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The group also includes Government amendments, which appear straightforward and are hopefully uncontroversial. The amendments from No. 173 onwards relate to clause 17, but have the same effect on later clauses, particularly clause 35. They would affect the definition of destitution.
 Under the clause: 
''Where a person has dependants, he and his dependants are destitute for the purpose of this Part if they do not have and cannot obtain—
(a) adequate accommodation, and
(b) food and other essential items.''
 Instead of making the effect accumulative—people are considered destitute if they do not have accommodation and food and other items—the amendment would qualify it, so that people are considered destitute if they do not have either adequate accommodation or food and other essential items. People frequently have accommodation, because they are staying with friends or family, but they cannot reasonably expect their friends or family to maintain them. It would relieve the burden on the state if accommodation did not have to be provided. It is nonsense to ask the state to look after people when others are willing to do so, but some recently arrived families may not have much in the way of financial resources. 
 We shall debate similar issues in part 3. If the Government really intend to introduce these provisions, it would appear to be a draconian and unsympathetic Treasury-driven policy. To qualify for support, one has to lack accommodation and food and other essential items. I hope that the Minister will soon assure us that that is not the intended policy and that it will be changed. In previous legislation, an either/or position was the prerequisite and trigger for providing support and I hope that we can return to that. 
 The change has been criticised by various organisations that provide advice. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Refugee Council have both criticised the phasing out of subsistence support and the Immigration Advisory Service made similar points, stating: 
''We deprecate the proposal that asylum seekers should not be allowed to receive NASS support only rather than both support and accommodation as well. This will prevent asylum seekers remaining within their communities, create additional tensions, add considerable cost to the system, make integration of refugees more difficult and lead to social exclusion.''
 The figures show that 20 per cent. of applicants can be or are accommodated with their families or in the community: they therefore receive help with cash, but not accommodation. They are given help to live, but do not need help to be accommodated. 
 Taking away the option is far from sensible. We have three basic ways of dealing with asylum seekers: in accommodation centres, where everything is provided on a trial basis; under the dispersal system, where accommodation is provided with subsistence but not in an accommodation centre; and with family and friends in communities, where accommodation is offered and the state does not have to pick up that obligation but where subsistence will be needed to help to foot the bills. Amendment No. 174 would have a similar effect, as would those grouped with it that relate to later clauses. 
 The second type of amendment is evidenced by amendment No. 175, which would remove clause 17(5), which states: 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations specify items which are or are not to be treated as essential items for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).''
 This is a probing amendment, because the Bill contains no definition of an essential item. I think that the Minister appreciates that it would be helpful to clarify what that means. Obviously, there will be regulations—the sooner we see them, the better—and we will seek to make them subject to affirmative, rather than negative, resolution. 
 Similarly, amendment No. 176 relates to clause 17(6), which states: 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations . . . provide that a person is not to be treated as destitute for the purposes of this Part in specified circumstances''.
 Again, this is a probing amendment, to discover what the specified circumstances might be. We ought to be told. 
 Amendment No. 133, which is supported by Conservative Members, would simply add a phrase that would ensure that all an asylum seeker's circumstances are taken into account, not only the 
 income that they are expected to have, because some people may not have what others have. I am sure that the Government understand the implications of that. Amendment No. 134 would have the same effect. 
 Finally, amendments Nos. 209, 210 and 212 make a similar point to that raised in the first group of amendments, although they relate to later clauses in the Bill. Policy on subsistence is a central issue, and I hope that we can retain all three options, with full Government support.

Humfrey Malins: Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 are probing amendments that relate to drafting. By adding the words
''having regard to all the circumstances'',
 we widen the clause to require and enable a full review of all the evidence that is available. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is some merit in that.

Karen Buck: I support the amendment, which presses the Government on whether we should withdraw support-only arrangements. I have made representations on this subject on several occasions and seek some reassurance from the Government.
 As a London Member of Parliament, my experience leads me to think that there are two potential consequences of withdrawing the support-only option. It will either increase the total cost of service provision, because of the likelihood that people who are currently receiving the minimum level of support will go into accommodation centres, or intensify the poverty of those who are providing support to members of their families or extended communities in their own homes. 
 I refer to a case that was brought to a local solicitor of a mother and a daughter who sought asylum from Iran following the death in prison of the girl's father. They were dispersed by NASS to Glasgow, where their flat was broken into a number of times and they were the targets of racial abuse. They came back to London and presented to the Refugee Council. They were then sent to Glasgow for a second time and were again subject to harassment, so they returned to London. The daughter was in a state of nervous breakdown and had to be admitted to hospital for mental health treatment. A friend of a relative who lives in America was able to offer them, rent free, the use of a room in north London, where they have lived ever since, receiving vouchers for support. 
 Notwithstanding the overcrowding at the property, that has allowed them to settle. The children are now in full-time school and college and the mother is in college and receiving counselling. The friend would not have been able to offer that level of support had she also been required to feed them. In this case, the asylum-seeking family received a better, cheaper and more appropriate level of support while its claim was being considered, and the host did not suffer poverty as a consequence. 
 I should like some indication from the Minister that the support-only option will be bad for economic 
 reasons and because of the risk it poses of intensifying poverty in certain communities—it has a particular impact on Turkish and Sri Lankan families. Can the Minister give the matter sympathetic consideration?

Angela Eagle: I am slightly puzzled by my hon. Friend's intervention at this stage. I was expecting to have this debate on clause 34, which deals with the abolition of—or potentially gives us the power to abolish—the support-only option. This part of the Bill deals only with the definition of destitution. It does not cover that area, and it would be more sensible, if my hon. Friend does not mind, for me to return to the serious points that she has made when we debate clause 34.
 There is no change in policy whatever implied in the change in wording of the definition of destitution in clause 17. We intend to use the definition in the new Act, when it reaches the statute book, in exactly the same way that we do the one in the 1999 Act. People might be suspicious because of the use of the word ''and'' rather than ''or''. The hon. Member for Woking got into some difficulty on the day of Her Majesty's jubilee speech to the two Houses, when he juxtaposed an ''or'' and an ''and''. However, in this case, there is no difference in policy.

Humfrey Malins: No, no, no. It is kind of the Minister to say that I got into difficulties. I reminded the Minister at the time that I am a huge monarchist. I was enabling a debate to get under way.

Angela Eagle: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. What I was trying to do by mentioning it was to illustrate that in that case the difference between ''and'' and ''or'' was drastic in that it removed the requirement to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty during a naturalisation ceremony. In this case, there is no difference in the way in which we intend to pursue the policy. The effect of the wording is that if a person does not have both adequate accommodation and food and other essential items, he will be seen, for the purposes of the Act, as destitute. Put another way, if he lacks either adequate accommodation or food and other essential items, he is destitute. I hope that that will calm the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
 There is no difference in effect between the old and the new wording. I am told that the new wording was placed in the Bill to make it easier to read and more user-friendly. There is no intent on the Government's side to change the definitions of destitution that were in the 1999 Act. That demonstrates the perils of trying to introduce plain English into legislation. As soon as Government change existing wording, everyone automatically assumes that there is a sinister motive for it. It is right that, in any legislature, such sinister motives should be hunted for. I assure hon. Members that there is no difference between the old and new definitions. I am sorry if people were alarmed and thought that there was, and am glad to be able to put the record right. 
 Amendments Nos. 175 and 212 would prevent the Secretary of State from being able to specify by regulations the items that are or are not be treated as essential to determine whether someone is destitute. 
 That would lead to uncertainty, dispute and delay, and perhaps even more money for lawyers at the beginning of the process when people need to be defined as available for NASS accommodation or not. 
 I want to reassure the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the principles will remain the same. They are already enshrined in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, which record what are not to be regarded as essential living needs. We envisage that the same list will be prescribed. For completeness, I shall say that the current list covers the cost of faxes, computer facilities, photocopying, travel except in limited circumstances, toys and other recreational items and entertainment. Without such a list, it is highly likely that confusion and disputes would arise regularly, thereby slowing down access to the system when people need it. 
 Some amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking would require the Secretary of State to have regard to all circumstances. The Government amendments give a wider discretion and achieve the same aim. 
 With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw his amendment. We will return to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North at the appropriate time.

Karen Buck: I apologise, but as we began to discuss the widening of the definition I got the impression that this was an appropriate time to raise those concerns. I am reassured by what my hon. Friend said.

Angela Eagle: I assure my hon. Friend that I will come to the debate that she has opened at the appropriate time.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's response. We can return to the subject of regulations, and I want to press the case to see them as soon as possible.
 It was not surprising that we opened a debate that comes under a later part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and I conceived a definition of destitution, and the subject reappears in clause 35 under the part of the Bill on support. Clause 35 immediately follows the clause on the form of support, so they link and the same 
 definition applies in both. The amendments were grouped so that we took amendments to clauses 17 and 35 together. The substantive point relates to concern about NASS, and I accept that we will return to that debate. 
 I understand what the Minister said about wording, and I shall suggest an amendment that might make it even clearer. A reference to ''(a) or (b) or both'' might be the best way to clarify the issue. There was clearly some confusion, as I was not the only person misled by the drafting. It appears straightforward, and I can see the other interpretation, so I am not being unreasonable. However, a form of drafting could probably make the matter clear beyond doubt. I shall not ask the Minister to accept my suggestion now, but if ''destitute'' means that someone does not have accommodation, support or either, perhaps we should have that wording so that we get everything right. 
 One of the great battles in this place is to make legislation that we can understand and that we hope others can understand. It would be good to make some progress.

Angela Eagle: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Our amendments were tabled to improve clarity. We do not appear to have achieved that, so I am reluctant to try again. However, I hope that he accepts the undertakings that I gave. I re-emphasise that there is no difference on the issue between our intentional policy in the 1999 Act and that in the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 104, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'or assets which are' and insert 'which is'. 
 No. 105, in page 10, line 43, at end insert— 
'( ) enable or require the Secretary of State in deciding whether a person is destitute to have regard to assets of a prescribed kind which he or a dependant of his has or might reasonably be expected to have;'.—[Angela Eagle.]
 Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.